Yes, the sensor is important. No, Canon doesn't make the best sensors from an IQ standpoint. But until consumers start buying bare silicon sensors to take pictures, what matters is camera performance, not only sensor performance.

I agree actually. Which is why I do not understand all that negativity when people hears about the 18 MP APS-C sensor... again.

Because there's only so much that people can tolerate a sensor that wasn't the best out there some years ago already. Lack of innovation about well known limits is what strikes and disappoints. Lack of additional feature to make up for an old sensor plus high price is what many consider to be just too much.

Now they're living on the glory of their name, which unfortunately is not enough for enthusiasts being offered absolutely unremarkable upgrades.

I don't believe that the Rebel/xxxD line is really targeted to enthusiasts looking to upgrade. It's an entry level line, marketed to people with a P&S or cell phone who 'want to take better pictures'. The majority of those buyers will purchase a Rebel/xxxD at a retail outlet (Best Buy, Costco, etc.) with 1-2 kit lens(es), and never buy another lens nor upgrade (and if their camera breaks in a few years, they'll buy the current Rebel/xxxD as a replacement, and by then it will be 'better').

There will be a minority of Rebel/xxxD owners who are interested in upgrading (and since the number of Rebel/xxxD owners is huge, even a minority fraction of that user base is a significant number). Canon wants those people to buy at least an xxD, preferably an xD body.

The other relevant point is that the people who post on a forum like this are an infinitesimal fraction of the dSLR market.

How is that people continually fail to understand that a "camera" is not a metal/plastic box with a sensor inside,

Neuro, you just failed Photography 101. We just had our last lecture before the final exam and the instructor took pains to point out that "A camera is a light tight box with a sensor inside and a mechanism for letting light in."I'm pretty sure thats going to be one of the answers required on the final exam.

Just an observation, of the fifteen students in the class, 2 have crop Nikons, 1 has a Sony Nex and the other 12 have crop Canons ranging from the XTi to the 7D. Canon must be doing something right with their "crappy" sensors.

No. You didn't discern what he was saying. I could simply give the answer, but just reread your answer and neuro statement and you'll discern the simple comment.

What no sense of humour on the board? You did notice the smiley? I understood that what Neuro meant to say was that a Camera is not "just" a metal box with a sensor inside.Or possibly is more than just a metal box with a sensor inside.

Nothing was wrong with the 18 MP Canon APS-C sensor when it was introduced. But since sensor technology has advanced. There were visible signs in Nikon D5100 then in OMD E-M5 and so on.What IQ improvements are visible in recent APS-C Canons, let's say in the last 4 years? None that I've noticed.

Does anyone here seriously feels that Canon development in APS-C segment accelerates?

How about the 5DmkIII that Canon was ready to introduce with SD card support but without UHS-I support? Has anyone heard about the issue? Then just check if Nikon D7000 has UHS-I support. Wait when was D7000 introduced? 2010? And when was 5DmkIII introduced?

hmmm

Oh dear, really hope this 18mp sensor is new and blows the socks off people! Otherwise theres no change.

I cannot imagine anything else but a new sensor...If not, the ISO 25k will look quite weird...;-)

A genuinely improved sensor would be enough to turn my opinion on the T5i right around. I'm starting to be cautiously optimistic... (An image of Lucy pulling away the football just before Charlie Brown is about to kick it comes to mind...)

Because there's only so much that people can tolerate a sensor that wasn't the best out there some years ago already. Lack of innovation about well known limits is what strikes and disappoints. Lack of additional feature to make up for an old sensor plus high price is what many consider to be just too much.

Who are these people who can't tolerate it? Sure, there's much eye-rolling on this forum (mine included), but I doubt that picky enthusiasts who care enough about this sort of thing to spend time every day reading camera forums are the target customers for Rebels, which seem to have been selling in high quantities over the years regardless of their relative inferiority; they obviously have an appeal, however mystifying that may be to high-end enthusiasts.

For my part, I'm quite happy with my 5DII and 6D (which I prefer to the D600 despite its theoretical inferiority). When I want something smaller and lighter, I'll be skipping over APS-C altogether (Im selling my back-up Rebel) and using the Olympus OMD that UPS should be delivering today; the combination of its mere 16MP sensor and astonishingly good little M43 lenses takes remarkably good photos for very little weight and bulk.

Now they're living on the glory of their name, which unfortunately is not enough for enthusiasts being offered absolutely unremarkable upgrades.

I don't believe that the Rebel/xxxD line is really targeted to enthusiasts looking to upgrade. It's an entry level line, marketed to people with a P&S or cell phone who 'want to take better pictures'. The majority of those buyers will purchase a Rebel/xxxD at a retail outlet (Best Buy, Costco, etc.) with 1-2 kit lens(es), and never buy another lens nor upgrade (and if their camera breaks in a few years, they'll buy the current Rebel/xxxD as a replacement, and by then it will be 'better').

There will be a minority of Rebel/xxxD owners who are interested in upgrading (and since the number of Rebel/xxxD owners is huge, even a minority fraction of that user base is a significant number). Canon wants those people to buy at least an xxD, preferably an xD body.

The other relevant point is that the people who post on a forum like this are an infinitesimal fraction of the dSLR market.

I agree, but:

- Entry-level or above, there is competition out there. I fail to see a reason why someone would choose this D700 over a competing product, except for the Canon name on it. When something costs more than respectable competing products yet offers less, there's something wrong.

- This behaviour from Canon has become widespread and noticed by internet reviewers as well. When the best thing you can say about a company like Canon is that "after all their products are good enough", there's something wrong.

- Recent history suggests that the future release of prosumer cameras will be as disappointing. Other manufacturers offer competent, modern products in every price range. With Canon it seems that unless you buy a 5D3 or a 1DX and a bunch of very expensive L glass, you're having less paying more.

- That basically kills the prosumer who is happy to spend good money but not quite that much. As a prosumer I don't care about the über-pro market segment; I care about the products in my price range, and in this respect Canon is failing terribly. Doesn't matter how many cameras they sell; good sale figures don't make a product better from a technical point of view.

The other relevant point is that the people who post on a forum like this are an infinitesimal fraction of the dSLR market.

Totally agree ... some people here, make comments as if their decision to not buy a new rebel xxD is somehow reflected in the whole world's opinion just bcoz the competition releases 1 or 2 camera bodies that are marginally better at a couple of things at best. Typical frog in a well syndrome.

The other relevant point is that the people who post on a forum like this are an infinitesimal fraction of the dSLR market.

Agreed!

In my canoe club, if you look at what people use you will see less than 1 percent with a low end DSLR, about 50 percent with point-shoots, and the rest with no camera or a cell phone. I have yet to see another paddler with the tell-tale white lens....

The 5D3 and 6D sensors have lower pixel count and poorer low ISO dynamic range compared to that on D800 and D600 respectively. So, there is no technical advantage whatsoever in Canon cameras

How is that people continually fail to understand that a "camera" is not a metal/plastic box with a sensor inside, any more than a car is a metal/plastic box with an engine inside? I was car shopping recently, pretty much every vehicle I was looking at, different body styles from 5 different manufacturers, all had a 3.5L 6-cyl engine. Does that mean there's no real difference between them?

Yes, the sensor is important. No, Canon doesn't make the best sensors from an IQ standpoint. But until consumers start buying bare silicon sensors to take pictures, what matters is camera performance, not only sensor performance.

so if canon tomorrow released the 5Dmk4, which was 2MP, had 1 stop of dynamic range shot in black and white and maxed out at ISO 100, but was twice as good in every other way as the current camera, you'd buy it?

NONSENSE.

It is an imaging device at the end of the day, and it needs to perform as an imaging device. sure it is not the only metric, but the end result is what you get, what you charge for, and what speaks of your work. You'll never look at a picture and admire it based on camera ergonomics, or wifi support, or how many cross points it has. Pixels do the talking for you at the end of the day, and yes you can still shoot horrible shots with great quality, yet the fact remains image quality remains king. You simply can't explain the amount of effort companies put into improving it otherwise or the fact the consumer pays attention to it anyways. And that is what matters. Canon needs to sell what consumers want, and if they review quality, companies need to deliver. The fact canon lags, doesn't make it less important.

The 5D3 and 6D sensors have lower pixel count and poorer low ISO dynamic range compared to that on D800 and D600 respectively. So, there is no technical advantage whatsoever in Canon cameras

How is that people continually fail to understand that a "camera" is not a metal/plastic box with a sensor inside, any more than a car is a metal/plastic box with an engine inside? I was car shopping recently, pretty much every vehicle I was looking at, different body styles from 5 different manufacturers, all had a 3.5L 6-cyl engine. Does that mean there's no real difference between them?

Yes, the sensor is important. No, Canon doesn't make the best sensors from an IQ standpoint. But until consumers start buying bare silicon sensors to take pictures, what matters is camera performance, not only sensor performance.

so if canon tomorrow released the 5Dmk4, which was 2MP, had 1 stop of dynamic range shot in black and white and maxed out at ISO 100, but was twice as good in every other way as the current camera, you'd buy it?

NONSENSE.

It is an imaging device at the end of the day, and it needs to perform as an imaging device. sure it is not the only metric, but the end result is what you get, what you charge for, and what speaks of your work. You'll never look at a picture and admire it based on camera ergonomics, or wifi support, or how many cross points it has. Pixels do the talking for you at the end of the day, and yes you can still shoot horrible shots with great quality, yet the fact remains image quality remains king. You simply can't explain the amount of effort companies put into improving it otherwise or the fact the consumer pays attention to it anyways. And that is what matters. Canon needs to sell what consumers want, and if they review quality, companies need to deliver. The fact canon lags, doesn't make it less important.

come on now.... that's like offering up a lamborghini with a rubber band motor.. I'ts balanced performance that makes a fine car and it's balanced performance that makes a fine camera.... It's lens... and sensor... and processing power and algorithms... and user interface... and ergonomics... and a host of other things too numerous to mention.

I can take a 1DX, put an old crappy lens on it, and ruin the balance of the system. Image quality will be crap. I can turn off autofocus and shoot blurry pictures.... image quality will be crap. I can turn off IS on a handheld long lens at slow shutter speeds.... image quality will be crap.

You need a good working SYSTEM to take a decent picture.... the sensor is only one part of that system so why is everyone so fixated on it?

The Olympus OMD-EM5 has a better sensor than my 60D. I even have a bin of Oly lenses. The Canon 60D has a better user interface, it feels better in the hand, and it has a better selection of glass. Guess which one I use? Hint: system beats sensor...

You need a good working SYSTEM to take a decent picture.... the sensor is only one part of that system so why is everyone so fixated on it?

My point exactly. Camera performance matters. Sensor performance is part of that, but short of people hyperbolizing to the point of NONSENsical absurdity, it's not the only part.

I suspect everyone is fixated on it for two reasons. First, in general, it's easy to measure sensor performance and plot the data or reduce the data to a single 'score'. Second, in particular on CR forums, it's an area where Canon is not leading, and some people like to create a stir by beating on that horse (we sometimes call them trolls...).

Canon-F1

I suspect everyone is fixated on it for two reasons. First, in general, it's easy to measure sensor performance and plot the data or reduce the data to a single 'score'. Second, in particular on CR forums, it's an area where Canon is not leading, and some people like to create a stir by beating on that horse (we sometimes call them trolls...).

well it´s easy as 1DX user to ignore what happens below the 2500$ barrier... right?

as long as your needs are fulfilled there is no reason to complain.and yes, against the D4 the 1DX looks good.

so excuse me when i don´t give much about your comments on the "dissapointed canon users" topic.

the obvious solution for all people with a lot of canon gear is to only buy the TOP product.so they don´t have to envy other brands.